Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 212: Harbouring offender.— if a capital offence; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. [“Offence” in this section includes any act committed at any place out of [India], which, if committed in [India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in [India].]
Exception.—This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 212
-
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal.
-
Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified.
-
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation…
- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan Asaram @ Asumal Harpalani
- The State of Kerala v. Mahesh
- Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb
- Mani v. State of Kerala and Others
- Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr.
- Anjan Dasgupta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad@ Rajballav Pp. Yadav@ Rajballabh Yadav
- Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal v. State of Utiar Pradesh & Anr.